Friday, April 17, 2009

Justice Dept. Won't Prosecute 9/11 Interrogators

CIA officers who used harsh interrogation techniques with terror suspects are off the hook:

In the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, CIA operatives were allowed to shackle, strip and waterboard terror suspects. Now, President Barack Obama has assured these operatives that they will not be prosecuted for their rough interrogation tactics.

At the same time, Obama's attorney general offered the operatives legal help if anyone else takes them to court over the harsh interrogation methods that were approved by the Bush administration.

The offer of presidential support, however, did not extend to those outside the CIA who approved the so-called enhanced interrogation methods or any CIA officers who may have gone beyond what was allowed in four legal memos written in 2002 and 2005 that the Obama administration released Thursday.

As far as those memos are concerned, two high-level Bush administration officials--former Attorney General Mukasey and CIA Director Hayden--write in the Wall Street Journal that declassifying the material showed poor judgment because "the release of these opinions was unnecessary as a legal matter, and is unsound as a matter of policy. Its effect will be to invite the kind of institutional timidity and fear of recrimination that weakened intelligence gathering in the past." Another former unnamed Bush administration official says that the release of the memos (which are available online) "does grave damage to our national security."

Update:Stratfor, the global intelligence clearinghouse, published an even-handed analysis of the decision to release the memos against the backdrop of what it describes as a massive intelligence failure reaching back a decade. The report concludes:

U.S. President Barack Obama has handled this issue in the style to which we have become accustomed, and which is as practical a solution as possible. He has published the memos authorizing torture to make this entirely a Bush administration problem while refusing to prosecute anyone associated with torture, keeping the issue from becoming overly divisive. Good politics perhaps, but not something that deals with the fundamental question.

The fundamental question remains unanswered, and may remain unanswered. When a president takes an oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” what are the limits on his obligation? We take the oath for granted. But it should be considered carefully by anyone entering this debate, particularly for presidents.